525
I cannot tell if this is satire. (thelemmy.club)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
107 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Scrolling through the all feed and saw this post and genuinely cannot tell of this is satire or not.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

It's not. You are just taking the definition of "Nuclear Family" in a vacuum. It's like thinking "Abolish the Police" means that everyone that says that means they want anarchy, no state, and no form of law enforcement.

It's a general phrase that speaks to the current structures and their real material results.

Your "idea" of the police or the nuclear family may be their definition on paper. An armed law enforcement. Or a single man, single women having kids.

These are what they are defined as in a vacuum. They are not what they are in the context of state structures.

The police are a defense of the capitalist class. Their job is first and foremost to protect private property and ensure class structures are not threatened.

The Nuclear Family is a means of ensuring a women's material conditions and her children are dependent on a man for his labor. That same structure ensures men are given the advantage of control in that family structure; while keeping them having no power in their work or their labor.

These are what "leftist" are talking about when we are talking about abolishing these systems.

It's not about being benevolent. It's about being educated in class struggle and patriarchy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Good try but no this was not in any way shape or form a clear way to say this. If you want to say “relive us from the pressure to conform to the tired and oppressive ideal of the nuclear family” then say that. Not “abolish the nuclear family,” which is nonsensical on its face because it’s physically impossible. Your connotations of this term are not to be confused with its denotation, and that’s the beginning and end of this. Anyway, I can tell you think this is super important but you’re not convincing me and I really don’t have any more fucks to give here so farewell.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago

    I think you're having a problem with the word "Abolish". You might want to look at an actual dictionary.

    Honestly, I feel like this happens a lot these days. There is a reason words in a dictionary have multiple definitions. But for some reason, today, people often just pick the most uncharitably definition and then just double down on their own misunderstanding.

    Webster's definitions:

    (1) to end the observance or effect of (something, such as a law) (2) to completely do away with (something)

    You're picking the second definition and just saying that it is "nonsensical". I know we live in a world where words are quickly losing their meaning; and it is beneficial (in social media) to purposely portray or misunderstand what someone says. But you can at least realize you're doing it when it's been pointed out to you so clearly. I don't think you're doing it on purpose.

    It's why I explained the systemic structures in my last comment. But, oddly, you seem to understand that and are just unfortunately having a problem with vocabulary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent